BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Magick and Mysticism

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Rev. Jesse
18:37 / 17.03.02
Okay, quick definitions on the titles spoken of earlier:

Mystic: Someone experiencing intense sensations attributed to spiritual or religious factors. Mysticism therefore is study and (perhaps) stimulation of these experiences.

Magician: Someone using one or a variety of different techniques to affect their world. Magic is a name given to these techniques. Magic is culturally defined and can vary from society to society. In modern western society, magic typically means manipulations on a level most people are unaware of using spiritual or semi-spiritual means.

Occultist: In the West, an occultist can mean anybody who is interested in hidden realms, whether forteanism, pyschic phenomena, spirits, magic, etc. The degree of interest nessary to refer to someone on this level varies from speaker to speaker.

A priest is a leader of religious rites. I am, you will notice, an ordained minister myself.


Now then,

I think a lot of the reasons why you headshoppers are so dismissive of magic is because we magicians cannot, on a regular basis, point out predictive results from our workings. We maybe able to enchant for wealth, but it is hard to say that it will come from the sale of an used plot of land rather than, say, a rich uncle dying. Since we cannot accurately predict how our magic will work, you may believe it is, therefore, contrary to the scientific method.

Well, maybe it is, but we, the magicians, still think magic works. How did we come to this assessment? We tried performing magic and workings. Lo and behold, to our surprise in many cases, we got results. So we kept doing it and a magical paradigm integrated itself into our worldview to accommodate this success. We can dismiss placing magic onto the scientific map of reality because we find that magic is unpredictable and that “the Lord works in mysterious ways.”

Now, I don’t want to sound like some old bitty, but, if you haven’t given magic a serious try, you have no reason to doubt it. This is because magic is an experiential phenomenon.

Most of you have a copy of a complete godhead invocation in the form of the 1st TPB of the Invisibles wherein King Mob summons John Lennon. If you have doubts about magic, try that summoning.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:37 / 18.03.02
quote:Originally posted by impulsivelad:
you can't be a magickian without being a mystic.

quote:Originally posted by Mordant C@rnival:
Not for long, anyway. One of them's got to give, either the magickyness or the non-mysticness.

quote:Originally posted by modthree:
humour us and elaborate on your thoughts!

Good question, m3, which is why I've taken a while to answer it.

Well, the above quote represents a personal opinion, and as with many other things YMMV. However, it's an opinion based on observation and borne out by the experiences of others.

I think of "mysticism" as an attempt to access the highest levels of conciousness, of being; the quest for the Divine, however you interpret that. Magick can be a tool to help us do this; it can also help us land a job or find a new flat.

Whilst I certainly don't think there's anything wrong in using magick to further your mundane life, I would suggest that you won't really get very far in your magickal career if that's all you use it for. One can become bogged down in the mundane, stagnant. Magick is hard work and if all you're after is your material goals, then you'll either get bored or get disappointed.

I suppose that's the bones of it.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
13:46 / 18.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Rev. Jesse:
Okay, quick definitions on the titles spoken of earlier:



Thank you for the clear, concise, and neutral definitions Brother Jesse.

quote:
Well, maybe it is, but we, the magicians, still think magic works. How did we come to this assessment? We tried performing magic and workings. Lo and behold, to our surprise in many cases, we got results. So we kept doing it and a magical paradigm integrated itself into our worldview to accommodate this success.

This brings an interesting stereotypical distinction between certain 'Mystic' and 'Magician' mindsets. These are not meant as blanket statements or generalities but it is a perception that is sometimes based in truth.

There is a tendency in 'Mysticism' to take the content and source of one's experiences completely on faith which leads to a greater and greater religious faith in those experiences. Critically questioning those experiences and their subsequent beliefs can invoke quite a nasty response in the 'mystic'. Maybe this is because of the alternative: if your mystical experiences aren't real then you must be crazy.

A 'Magician' who is interested in results (by results in this case I mean anything from completely altruistic 'enlightened' magic for the benefit of others to wanting a raise at work) usually has to go through a long involved process of fine tuning or even a complete revising of their methodology in order to produce results that are satisfactory. Sometimes that process is a life-long one.

In order to be an effective magician you need to question yourself, your methods, and your results. You need to figure out where things can be improved, make those changes and then try them out. And then you need to be honest enough to say, "Well, that didn't work." when you make mistakes.

In someways this isn't as opposed to the 'Scientific Method' as some people would believe.

Caveat: The above isn't meant to slam 'mystics'. There are just as many pigheaded and 'religious' 'magicians' in the world and there are many questioning and openminded 'mystics'.

And all of us magicians, mystics, occultists, priests, and wack-a-moles may all be crazy anyway.
 
 
Ierne
14:04 / 18.03.02
My own views about reality would not be completely alien to magick users. What bothers me the most is the scepticism to ideas of rationality and perhaps, scientific method. This becomes all the more confusing when I see the genuine opposition to actual charlatans and politically motivated anti scientists like creationists. – Lurid Archive

I agree, although my "scientific experience" is unfortunately limited to senile high school teachers and my landlady's subscription to Natural History Magazine.

It's important to remember that much of what is now considered science was once considered magic – the transformation of Alchemy into Chemistry is an excellent example. Magick and Science can be seen as two ways of trying to a) make sense of the world around us and b) explain how energy and matter interact to cause change in the world.

In modern western society, magic typically means manipulations on a level most people are unaware of using spiritual or semi-spiritual means. – Rev. Jesse

It may help if you clarify what you mean by 'manipulations'. To manipulate can mean "to handle skillfully," "to manage (a person, situation, etc) to one's own advantage, especially unfarly," or "to manually examine or treat (an object, a part of the body, etc.)."

I think a lot of the reasons why you headshoppers are so dismissive of magic is because we magicians cannot, on a regular basis, point out predictive results from our workings. – Rev. Jesse

With all due respect, I think perhaps the dismissal may be more due to how many Magickians attempt to explain their results in the face of lack of predictive results (ie, how we cover our asses in the face of "no proof"). There are lots of things one can do with Magick that are extremely difficult to describe or explain. For many people, it just isn't good enough to hear "Well, it was my will to do so" or "I burned the black candles at midnight and prayed to Azrael" or "The Lord Shiva granted my boon." How the fuck did it happen???? is the $64,000 question.

We tried performing magic and workings. Lo and behold, to our surprise in many cases, we got results. So we kept doing it and a magical paradigm integrated itself into our worldview to accommodate this success. – Rev. Jesse

Another way of explaining this wonderful phenomenon is "Well, it works and we don't care to question why; if we question it it might stop working, and that would suck." It certainly does work, and the most scientific way I could possibly describe it is that the magician is harnessing energy and using it to effect changes – what that energy is is something I wish scientists would look into.

My personal take is that changes are taking place within the individual that shifts hir perspective on a given situation; that shift causes hir to pay attention to aspects of the matter that may not have been noticed before, and to take certain actions that s/he might not have considered before. Because every action gets a reaction (I misquoted that, didn't I? sorry), hir previously unexpected actions will garner some unexpected result.

Now, I don’t want to sound like some old bitty, but, if you haven’t given magic a serious try, you have no reason to doubt it. This is because magic is an experiential phenomenon. – Rev Jesse

Aw, crankypants!
Science is experiential too. Both require keen observation and active participation. And constant questions!!!!
 
 
Rev. Wright
14:43 / 18.03.02


AS with much of humanity's developments both Mysticism and Magick were inseparable. One communed with the ether and then one acted upon this. Monuments were constructed to help commune and rituals were enacted to effect outcome.

Irene mentions the turning of Alchemy to Chemistry, and I feel that more happened than that. Physical certainties were converted, whilst more esoteric chains of thoughts were rejected.

Why?

If people here have experiences within framework of Magick and some have not, can we ascertain a reasoning or action that would split what once was a unified experience? I'm not suggesting that there is a simple answer, but an understanding of context and reasoning.
 
 
—| x |—
17:47 / 18.03.02
!!!

quote:Originally posted by will it work wright?:
Irene mentions the turning of Alchemy to Chemistry, and I feel that more happened than that. Physical certainties were converted, whilst more esoteric chains of thoughts were rejected.

!!!

Yes! Somewhere along the line the metaphysical and/or spirit of alchemy was buried under materialism and the triumph of rationality. Chemistry, like some but not all other sciences, abandons any attempt at describing phenomena beyond chains of little bits and how these bits interact. We loose out on the more "esoteric" results of experimentation due to the fact that, say, chemistry is an attempt to present experiences in an objective manner. The only way to conform the experiments to work objectively in every (almost every?) case is to focus on the lowest common denominator of the qualia of our experiences; thus, we get little bits that are a description of the bare minimum of properties that most of us can derive from the bits if we adopt a scientific framework (and have access to the right equipment).

The big difference, to me anyway, is that alchemy appears as an attempt to put it all together and chemistry the attempt to take it all apart. Of course, once chemistry has taken it apart, it then is in a position to start putting things together again, but it can not put it together in the way that alchemy does because chemistry has limited its scope and vision through its deconstruction of experience to Lowest Common Denominator bits qua chemistry.

In short, I don't think alchemy transformed into chemistry; rather, chemistry was an offshoot of alchemical investigation which grew up to vastly overshadow its origins. Alchemy is still with us but the Age of Reason has deemed it useless because its results do not concern Lowest Common Denominator bits, but rather, the Magnum Opus: the life's work of striving to exist as a whole being who shines as starlight.

m3

[ 18-03-2002: Message edited by: modthree ]
 
 
Rev. Jesse
19:10 / 18.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Lothar Tuppan:
There is a tendency in 'Mysticism' to take the content and source of one's experiences completely on faith which leads to a greater and greater religious faith in those experiences.

I think the reason why mystics describe many of their experiences in terms of religious faith is because they do not have and/or cannot create a worldview that can include these “mystical” experiences without resorting to religious faith and spiritualism. A great many people have no frame of reference for the miraculous expect through religion and, as such, see their intense experiences as religious ones.

Conversely, a UFO nut’s intense experience would probably been seen as an encounter of the third kind.

Timothy Leary is an excellent example of a person who did experience these "mystical" sensations and did not automatically resort to explaining it with religion. Dr. Leary instead theorized that certain circuits of the brain, when trigged either physically, such as by Sufi Dervish training, or chemically, with LSD, cause the recipient to perceive experiences which were previously describe as “mystical.” Deepak Chopra has also done work in this area.

quote:Originally posted by Lothar Tuppan:
...if your mystical experiences aren't real then you must be crazy.

Regardless of the empirical reality, the experience is real to the mystic. The mystic reacts to it as if it were real and his reactions can impact others.

quote: Posted by Irene the Amazine:
How the fuck did it happen???? is the $64,000 question.

Umm… why? Why are you so hung up on that?

-Jesse
 
 
Ierne
19:31 / 18.03.02
Why are you so hung up on that? – Rev. Jesse

Och, sorry if that wasn't clear.

The $64,000 question "How the fuck did it happen????" would be asked by non-Magickians, not by me. My answer to that question would be, depending on who I was dealing with:

"I don't know, but it happened. Cool, eh?"

or perhaps an explanation along the lines of what I said further down in my post, how Magick causes changes in how the magickian sees the situation so s/he can react to the situation differently than s/he would had s/he not utilized Magick.

But most likely my response would be:

"Who's Irene? Maybe she's responsible!"
 
 
—| x |—
19:43 / 18.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Rev. Jesse:
Mystic: Someone experiencing intense sensations attributed to spiritual or religious factors. Mysticism therefore is study and (perhaps) stimulation of these experiences.

Magician: Someone using one or a variety of different techniques to affect their world. Magic is a name given to these techniques. Magic is culturally defined and can vary from society to society. In modern western society, magic typically means manipulations on a level most people are unaware of using spiritual or semi-spiritual means.

Occultist: In the West, an occultist can mean anybody who is interested in hidden realms, whether forteanism, [psychic] phenomena, spirits, magic, etc. The degree of interest [necessary] to refer to someone on this level varies from speaker to speaker.

Are these really “…clear, concise, and neutral definitions?” No, I don’t think they are. If you all will allow me to continue in a D.A. role, then let’s take a look.

Embedded within the first two definitions is the notion of “spiritual.” Now this begs the question what is spiritual? How are we cashing out 'spiritual' and what differentiates the spiritual from the non-spiritual? This seems to me similar to the problem of trying to explain how those things that are magick are differentiated from those things that are not. What criteria of evaluation are you using when you say “this is magick while this is not” or “this is spiritual while this is not.” If we desire to make such distinctions, then we owe an explanation on exactly how these things are intended to be distinguished. If we can not provide this part of our story, then we either need to rewrite some of our foundations or start from scratch.

On this same line of argument, the third definition above runs into problems with the notion of “hidden realms.” This is also similar to a problem I see with Mordant’s last post (btw, it is greatly appreciated that you took the time to think about the issues and then came back to say your piece! ). She says:

quote:I think of "mysticism" as an attempt to access the highest levels of con[s]ciousness…

which is a reasonable way to think about it, but I am critical of our hang ups regarding notions of levels. Where are these levels? What distinguishes one type of consciousness from the other? To get back to the Right Honorable Reverend’s definition: where are these “hidden realms” hidden? Are there really realms and levels to our reality, or do we merely convince ourselves that there are in order to make differentiation an easier task? In other words, I am increasingly skeptical of talk about levels and realms separate from this realm right here, right now. If you want to keep with the notion of levels and realms, then I ask you, where is the work done? That is, if there are divisions and levels and realms in both our consciousness and our external world, then where is it that processes are initiated and carried out and why is there then a repetition of work on other levels? This does not seem at all parsimonious.

So, can we escape the quagmire of relativity to engage with the reality or are we hopelessly lost and submerged under the quicksand of our own paradigm?

Magick: using the tools found within a box to alter the contents of that box.

Mysticism: getting outside the box.

Occultist: someone who lives vicariously off the experiences of others while being too lazy or afraid to search for these experiences for him or her self.

maybe?

{0, 1, 2}
 
 
Lurid Archive
19:51 / 18.03.02
I have to agree with modthree that a certain type of person can overly emphasise the material to the exclusion of all else. However we run the risk of caricature in viewing all scientists in this light. Many feel a wonder with the world that is enhanced rather than degraded by their understanding of nature.

But I am genuinely intrigued by the apparent hostility to ideas of rationality and the quest to accumulate knowledge via objective experience. Phrases such as "the lowest common denominator of the qualia of our experiences" are quite striking.

I'd be the first to admit that someone who sees only the measurable is surely living a barren existence. But I'd hesitate to say that, for instance, a historian who attempts to piece together the past via hard evidence is limited in scope and vision.

This raises some interesting questions for me. I don't find chemistry limited in referring to little bits of objectivity. Actually, I find thinking about the interactions of atoms and electrons quite mind blowing. I don't find it lacking in failing to say anything about the metaphysical any more than I find poetry limited in its failure to encompass trigonometry. I assess my experiences through a rational framework, where possible. So I allow the possibility of the more esoteric just as I allow the possibility of my own self delusion. I am willing to explore but I am wary of facile refuge in fantasy. (I've been there before.)

To anyone who is still awake: does that make the pursuit of magick closed to me? Is my mindset completely inimical to your ideas of the mystical?


modthree: These issues do keep coming up. In order to avoid threadrot, perhaps we should discuss them on another thread?
 
 
alas
22:11 / 18.03.02
I'm very much enjoying thinking about all this--
quote:I think a lot of the reasons why you headshoppers are so dismissive of magic is because we magicians cannot, on a regular basis, point out predictive results from our workings. – Rev. Jesse

With all due respect, I think perhaps the dismissal may be more due to how many Magickians attempt to explain their results in the face of lack of predictive results (ie, how we cover our asses in the face of "no proof")--Ierne.

I hope that my previous posts have made it clear that I, for one, am a "headshopper" who is NOT dismissive, or at the very least not entirely dismissive of magick, but I am concerned about distinguishing between "occultists" and "real" magicians. While it's true that there can be scientific frauds, there is a systemic (of course) approach to dealing with those frauds.

Yet, that systemizing approach may in fact be problematic in and of itself. For one thing, there's nothing more deadly than the prose of most academic, peer-reviewed journals. If there's a mage in me she's saying "eek!" to that system!)

I think the questions raised about what "counts" as "spirituality" and "higher levels of consciousness" are also very interesting--could someone talk more about that?

[ 19-03-2002: Message edited by: alas ]
 
 
The Monkey
01:32 / 19.03.02
This is just a thought:

In every other context but CM, magic takes an empiricist structure such as described below: this idea of "ritual subjectivism" is brand new - perhaps two centuries old at a stretch.

If you look at old magical forms, from Tantra and the various alchemys of China, India, and Europe, from Hermeticism to Dim Mak to the priesthoods of Tezcatlipoca and the Inuit shamans, there is a codification that establishes how "magic" functions. This occurs upon a mechanistic level, such as the usage of chemical materials in alchemy, but also within the realm of the social, such as the codification of ritual to summon various oricha in Fon tradition.

"Science" did not used to be "Magic," but then budded off: the scientific method, as codified by men like Bacon [himself an alchemist] is continuous with one aspect of the project of "mysticism and magic" across all cultures...an attempt to quantify the structures that make up existence, to answer the set of "Why?" questions that arose from people's interactions with their environment, to create intellectual structures that explained what initiated an event.

Science pursues consistency from cause to effect...it pursues the ideal that any person can repeat an experiment (a ritual) and get the same products by the same method. Hence the importance of replicating each and every step of an experiment in the same order, etc. Hence the existence of peer-reviewed journals, ethics committees, etc. within the amorphous realm of physical science - all are attempts to ensure this consistency from basis, through process, to result.

Even within "peasant" or "low" magical systems, such as found in rural China, or among Andean natives, there is a codex of relationships that establish a set of fundamental utilitarian relationships of cause and effect. When a new circumstance arises, such as a new disease or an unforeseen catastrophe, practictioners generate new ritual techniques using preexisting knowledge as a primer from which a structured approach to the new problem can be shaped from units of precedently reliable ones. The same is true in the spiritual-social context of the shaman/pache - the proper forms of relationships are laid out in tutelage, but specific cases require riffing off of the precedents.

[ 19-03-2002: Message edited by: [monkey - greatest sage of all] ]
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
03:22 / 19.03.02
Thank. You. Monkey!
 
 
Ierne
12:11 / 19.03.02
To anyone who is still awake: does that make the pursuit of magick closed to me? Is my mindset completely inimical to your ideas of the mystical? – Lurid Archive

Not at all! To me it's just another way to approach certain questions. (other Magickians/Mystics may feel differently from me, however; it's a highly individual way of living, and each person has their own point of view.)

[monkey - greatest sage of all] makes a great point by saying:

"Science" did not used to be "Magic," but then budded off: the scientific method, as codified by men like Bacon [himself an alchemist] is continuous with one aspect of the project of "mysticism and magic" across all cultures...an attempt to quantify the structures that make up existence, to answer the set of "Why?" questions that arose from people's interactions with their environment, to create intellectual structures that explained what initiated an event.

I second Lothar's thanks, [monkey]

I hope that my previous posts have made it clear that I, for one, am a "headshopper" who is NOT dismissive, or at the very least not entirely dismissive of magick, but I am concerned about distinguishing between "occultists" and "real" magicians. – alas

Don't sweat it, alas – it's great interacting with you on this topic! One of the important things about practicing Magick is to be open to questioning, not just from within oneself but from outside as well. However, there are many stultifying stereotypes concerning Magick and the types of folk that practice it, and it gets fustrating banging one's head repeatedly against these stereotypes when dealing with non-magickians. Thankfully that hasn't been the case here.

[ 19-03-2002: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:16 / 19.03.02
Oh yeah. Go, Monkey.

[ 19-03-2002: Message edited by: Mordant C@rnival ]
 
 
grant
18:26 / 19.03.02
I think monkey's post (among others here) touched on an important point: explicability.

Science deals solely with the explicable: sulfur is flammable; mixed with charcoal and potassium nitrate, it becomes explosive.

Magick and mysticism deals with the inexplicable:
the spirit of fire enters sulfur and dances, because it finds yellow a pleasing color, and the smell reminiscent of fires gone by. that spirit comes from a place which we cannot see, hear, smell or describe in any way - we can only sense it at work in the silence of our innermost beings, and even then, only imperfectly.

The idea that every step of a process should be just as explicable as the whole process goes back to Greeks, I *think* - it has that whiff of Democritus ("there is nothing but atoms & the void") and Aristotle (great chain of being, in which the simple/lower always develops forward to the complex/higher) about it.

It's not just about repeatability of experiments, consistency of results or even guiding paradigms (electron valences vs. Divine Will). It's about knowing the steps and explaining them in plain language.

Which simply isn't possible when dealing with the unknowable. Although doublethink and "negative capability" - and even Derridean deconstruction, proving linguistic structures contain their opposites - might come close to pointing the way.

It's also interesting to me that as science progresses it's becoming less and less comprehensible - the more it describes, the more specialized the various branches become, and the more it all seems like magick from a distance.
I think you'll always find magick thoughts hiding around the edges of scientific observation - when we can photograph quarks, the magickal "see-I-told-you-so!'s will shift from quantum theory to something even further out there.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:54 / 19.03.02
One niggle with grant's post and a comment of Ierne's.

Hard nosed sceptic scientist that I may be
I think that there isn't as much of a division as lots of people think.

My test for magick would be whether it worked (my flirtations with sigils were inconclusive). As to things being explicable, that always comes later. First I'd just want to see something happen - if I can't explain it, then that just points to my ignorance or lack of imagination. Really, I think that this is a fairly scientific view. Its not all as rigid as it seems.

But the strength of opinion on this board makes me want to experiment more. My g/f is fairly involved with magick, but apart from getting the odd Tarot Reading and requesting the odd spell, I haven't involved myself much. Time to stop being so passive...
 
 
Ierne
12:18 / 20.03.02
...there isn't as much of a division as lots of people think. – Lurid Archive

Many Magickians and Witches have a notebook or journal where they write down everything they do magically – rituals, spells, recipes for incense or oils, divination, etc – in detail. Often they look back over their notes, check out what worked, what didn't work and why, and where there's room for improvement in their method.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:20 / 20.03.02
OK, time for confessions.

My opinion of magick users has been a bit of a stereotype and I thought my g/f was a singular aberration. In fact, I've been very wary of the magick forum because of the apprehension at meeting people with views I am completely opposed to. I can do it, you understand, it just gets ugly.

But reading posts like Ierne's and others has made me step back a bit and reconsider. FFS, you people are reasonable! Doh!

I suppose I was focusing too much on some negative personal experiences. I'm sure that there are people who conform to my stereotype, but I definitely feel more comfortable (and a little silly).
 
 
Ierne
13:48 / 20.03.02
In fact, I've been very wary of the magick forum because of the apprehension at meeting people with views I am completely opposed to. I can do it, you understand, it just gets ugly. – Lurid Archive

This reminds me of a post I wrote a week or so ago in response to MC:

the Magick is not homogeneous – everyone's at a different level. Some of us have been doing it for years & years, some of us just started, and others still aren't sure they want to start. Also, there are various paths represented, with highly divergent interpetations of the moral codes espoused by those paths.

This is very important to keep in mind when reading or posting to the Magick Forum. There is no One Right True Only Way in Magick (although unfortunately there tends to be some "my way is better than your way" bullshit bandied about from time to time – and THAT gets ugly!); each person makes their own decisions and figures things out for themselves in their own time.

[ 20-03-2002: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:03 / 20.03.02
Yes, I remember reading that post.

MC has done a lot to reassure me that its not as scary as I imagine, but she has lots of positive experiences of magick. I have some negative ones, of some very dodgy christian healers, for example. Also MC is a diplomat, whereas I....

sorry, threadrot. I just felt like sharing.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
16:53 / 20.03.02
Magick really isn't that different from any other art, skill, or craft (in my opinion the umbrella term of 'magick' encompasses techniques that fall across all of those categories - and maybe some that aren't even occuring to me right now).

Having an unquestioning and non-critical attitude towards any field that you wish to become proficient in will hinder your continued growth in that field.

cusm talked about the 'balance' of combining different approaches and I've found that the more reasonable practitioners do take a balanced approach and wear different hats in different situations in order to further their skills, techniques, etc.

An occultist isn't automatically someone who is just sitting on the sidelines but can be everything from a historian to a theorist. Having that knowledge and background can benefit the practitioner when trying to fine tune their techniques.

Analogies can be made to any number of fields but let's pick music for example...

Natural talent will allow a musician to do some amazing things but it also will benefit the musical prodigy to learn and master the scales, how to read and notate music, look to how different music was composed and to what effect, and to learn certain conventions that will allow them to work and jam with others among other things.

The magician can in the same way benefit from studying how other cultures and magicians have practiced magick. By studying cross-cultural practices, rituals, etc. the magician can begin to really create their own magic. Looking to the trial and error of those in the past, the magician can continue to innovate and move forward instead of 'reinventing the wheel' out of ignorance of what came before.

The 'fathers' of Chaos magic were also 'occultists' in their study and deconstruction of rituals from many different traditions. The modern practitioners that enjoy the freedom and other benefits of Chaos magic are reaping the rewards of the discipline and hard work of those magician/occultists who continued to advance and perfect their skills.


In regards to the non-reasonable practitioners - I've also met plenty of magickal 'religious' fanatics. They are usually more concerned with defending their world views and being right than about perfecting their skills, art, etc.

Come on over to The Magick Lurid Archive, the water's fine.

(not everyone is as reasonable as Ierne or [Monkey - super sage] but we won't start drooling on your shoes either)

[ 20-03-2002: Message edited by: Lothar Tuppan ]
 
 
—| x |—
23:55 / 21.03.02
!!!

quote:Originally posted by Lurid Archive:
I think that there isn't as much of a division as lots of people think.

!!!
 
 
—| x |—
00:08 / 22.03.02
quote:Originally posted by alas:
I think the questions raised about what "counts" as "spirituality" and "higher levels of consciousness" are also very interesting--could someone talk more about that?

I think that these are interesting too. I would love to talk more about what counts! I am afraid, however, that I don't think there are reasonable ways to construct such divisions. In fact, I argue that no human is able to take an x and its complement (think, for example, of the distinction sacred and profane) and then proceed to classify under that x (or its complement) a list which, by necessity, will include other such xs or their complements (think, for example, of an aging ideology that says what is sacred is also male and courageous. See what I mean?

Thus, the people who owe you an explanation of their criteria for making such distinctions are those who think that they can make them.

m3
 
 
cusm
00:25 / 22.03.02
Consciousness may or may not be "higher" with such practices, but it is certainly differentiated from the normal baseline state of average existance. Suitably altering perceptions of consciousnes from the norm allows one to experience new perspectives, and gain further insight into the workings of "normal" existance. A system can not know itself, so escape the system in order to see it more clearly. One might reach "enlightend" states, or one might reach "insane" states. Either way, the aspirant has changed their perspective from their norm, and has gained insight form the experience.

Magick is one way to do this. By investing one's self into the elements of ritual, manipulation of those elements causes an according change within. Use of meditative techniques or psychological tools to lower barriers of resistance to ideas such as declaring "sacred space" help one to accept internal changes. Invocations or the manipluation of meaningful objects cause one to gain a new experience or change a current one.

I think this is the heart of the mystical experience, using the psychologically manipulative techniques of magick to experience altered states of being.
 
 
Lurid Archive
00:29 / 22.03.02
"!"

hehehe. If you are going to say something, then say something.

OR

I know what you mean and I agree in ways that disagree.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
00:55 / 22.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Lothar Tuppan:
Come on over to The Magick Lurid Archive, the water's fine.

Yesssss.... join ussssssss.... joiiiiinn uuuuusssssss!
 
 
The Monkey
01:01 / 22.03.02
Drink the Kool Aid, Lurid. It's delicioussssss.
 
 
—| x |—
04:33 / 22.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Lurid Archive:
"!"

hehehe. If you are going to say something, then say something.

OR

I know what you mean and I agree in ways that disagree.





I really hope that one day we have the opportunity to get together and raz a pint of "something!"

m3
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply